Grass roots lobbying encouraged at San Diego Unified

Artwork from the education action portion of the San Diego Unified website

San Diego schools have launched a website and are sending email blasts urging residents to take certain positions on state issues.

Officials say the effort is necessary because of the district’s budget woes, but the effort raises legal issues about the use of public resources for political purposes.

As an example, the San Diego Unified School District on April 16 sent an email to parents with the subject line “Make Your Voice Heard — Support AB 2434.”

The proposal by Marty Block, D-San Diego, would extend a law allowing school districts to retain the proceeds of sales or leases of surplus property from 2014 to 2019. If the bill fails, that revenue would revert to the state.

The email said, “AB 2434... is an important bill that provides budget flexibility for school districts with the use of local real estate revenues. This bill will help school districts like San Diego Unified to balance our budget during these difficult economic times.”

The website was created by district Chief of Staff Bernie Rhinerson after the school board directed staff to provide more information to the public about issues facing the district. The website cost $2,000 to launch and $1,200 a month to maintain, Rhinerson said.

Rhinerson, when asked about the legality of the site, said the district’s legal staff vetted it before its launch and found no problems with it. The district has received only one complaint about the site, Rhinerson said.

“The District General Counsel reviewed the site before launch and did not see any legal problems with the activity since it does not advocate for a specific vote on any ballot measure,” Rhinerson said. “And it provides information to the public and any actions taken are voluntary decisions by users of the site.”

State law prohibits the use of public resources to advocate a position on a ballot measure, but also specifically allows local governments to lobby legislators.

Those two provisions left open the question of whether a local government could ask its constituents to contact lawmakers — grass roots lobbying.

The California Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in the 1978 case Miller v. Miller, which questioned the use of state funds for the California Commission on the Status of Women to build public support — and therefore push legislative approval — of the federal Equal Rights Amendment.

The court determined the commission’s actions were more like using public resources on a ballot measure campaign (which is not allowed) than directly lobbying lawmakers (which is allowed).

“It is one thing for a public agency to present its point of view to the Legislature,” the ruling stated. “It is quite another for it to use the public treasury to finance an appeal to the voters to lobby their Legislature in support of the agency’s point of view.”

The court found that such spending distorts the integrity of the political process, saying such tactics are more appropriate in totalitarian regimes.